{"id":2927,"date":"2002-10-02T18:01:10","date_gmt":"2002-10-02T18:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/staging.armedliberal.com\/?p=325"},"modified":"2002-10-02T18:01:10","modified_gmt":"2002-10-02T18:01:10","slug":"oh-realllly%c2%85","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/?p=2927","title":{"rendered":"OH, REALLLLY\u0085"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here\u0092s the key text from today\u0092s N.J. Supreme Court decision<\/a> regarding replacing Torricelli on the November ballot(emphasis mine):<\/p>\n

And the Court having concluded that the central question before it is whether the dual interests of full voter choice and the orderly administration of an election can be effectuated if the relief requested by plaintiffs were to be granted; And the Court being of the view that<\/p>\n

[it] is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all other qualifying parties and groups.
\nKilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J. 435, 441 (1952);<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And the Court remaining of the view that the election statutes should be liberally construed<\/p>\n

to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day<\/I><\/B>.
\nCatania v. Haberle, 123 N.J. 438, 448;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yeah, right. It infuriates me to see the Democrats crowing and the republicans throwing fits, as though the sanctity of the electoral process meant anything to any one of their SkyBox-sitting asses.
\nIf the law of the land is that we should have a choice on Election Day, why do the courts tolerate the outrageous gerrymandering that creates essentially one-party seats?
\nIt\u0092s important to have two parties on the ballot, you see, but it doesn\u0092t really matter whether there\u0092s an election or not.
\nHere are two great articles on the subject. First, from this Sunday\u0092s L.A. Times (actually, a good damn issue\u0085): In California, Politicians Choose–and Voters Lose<\/a>. Here\u0092s a quote:<\/p>\n

What if the World Series had been played during spring training, the commissioner of baseball having picked the competing teams? Baseball fans would be outraged. Yet something similar has happened to California elections. In the vast majority of legislative and congressional districts, we have no general election contests this fall because the races were decided in the spring primaries. The political stadium is dark.
\nHow many competitive races for the House of Representatives are there in the Southland? None. How many competitive races for the state Senate? None. How many for the Assembly? Two–at most.
\n\u0085
\nThat’s what a politician likes–the fewer voters, the better, and especially if they are the most partisan ones. Candidates beat their breasts about what hard-core partisans they are, and the tiny number of people who go to the polls respond by electing the most hard-core partisans in both parties.
\nThe result is a largely dysfunctional Legislature. Members chosen in a closed primary, with a minimum of voters participating, come to Sacramento intent on representing the narrow partisan positions that got them there.
\nIs it any wonder they cannot negotiate a state budget? Passing the budget–it was two months late this year–is the most important and most difficult thing a legislator does because it requires compromise and negotiation. The current system encourages exactly the opposite.
\nOne Republican who might have broken the budget impasse this summer privately told friends, “Look, I can’t afford to cross my primary voters; they demand that I hang tough.” The sentiment was the same on the Democratic side. A look at the shadow Legislature elected in March shows future members will be even more ideologically rigid.
\nCalifornians might remember this when they cast their meaningless votes in November for their preordained members of the Legislature–if they bother to vote at all.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And from UPI (via Eugene Volokh<\/a>), this interview<\/a> with Dan Polsby:<\/p>\n

The 2002 elections for Congressional Representatives will be the first conducted under the new districts drawn following the 2002 Census. Although important issues are at stake in November, most of the districts’ borders have been gerrymandered so skillfully that the typical race’s outcome is predetermined. Time Magazine estimates that 394 House seats are “safe,” 29 are “almost safe,” and eleven are “toss-ups.” That’s eleven toss-ups out of 435 separate elections.
\nIn contrast, 8 of 34 Senate seats are said to be toss-ups. The Senate is more than ten times more competitive than the House, in large part because Senate races are fought over entire states, which can’t be gerrymandered. With districts, however, by carefully redrawing boundaries, parties can ensure that that most of their incumbents enjoy a comfortable majority.
\nThis is the opposite of what the Framers of the Constitution intended for the House of Representatives. They wanted the House to represent the views of the public by allowing voters to make wholesale changes in their Representatives every two years. The Senate, in contrast, with its staggered six-year terms, was supposed to provide a brake on popular passions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Explain why we have elections now??
\nBoth parties are guilty as hell in this.
\nMy own Congressional district\u0085once one of the few competitive districts in Los Angeles\u0085was \u0091readjusted\u0092 with the conservative areas of Palos Verdes given to the next district south to make it a safe Republican seat, and the more liberal areas of Santa Monica added to make it a safe Democratic seat.
\nWhy not just let the party staff and donors pick the Congressmembers directly? Why do they even bother filling my mailbox with inane crap?
\nCan you tell I\u0092m more than a little put out by this??
\nYou should be too.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here\u0092s the key text from today\u0092s N.J. Supreme Court decision regarding replacing Torricelli on the November ballot(emphasis mine): And the Court having concluded that the central question before it is whether the dual interests of full voter choice and the orderly administration of an election can be effectuated if the relief requested by plaintiffs were […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2927"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2927\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}